Originality and underdogs

[pat_mathis]

I think deep down inside every indie has a the desire to crack the market and some how turn a buck. There have been quite a few over the years that have made it and I see a good mix of original content as well as clones.

It seem that originality does not pay in the long run. When ever you get a new idea, leave it to the big boys to rape every idea out of you (Just look at Yahoo, and then look at every thing Pop-Cap has ever made). At least you get that first run, before any one else has the idea up and running.

Then there are games that are straight up clone that make it (Painkiller, Serious Sam, ect...). I think the biggest selling point for them is the tiny price tag, but some times it's hard to stand out when your like every one else.

So which path is better?

[Methulah]

I think that a blend of unique and original ideas and tried and tested features are essential to make an impact and make something fun to play.
Thanks.

[SpreeTree]

Doing an original game that, for want of better words, sucks, is not going to allow you to succeed. The same goes for making a clone. If the games poorly implemented, then you will get nothing.

So does that mean all good games succeed? Everyone knows the answer to that one!

Trying to beat Fifa at their own game will never succeed, clone or not, due to the shear weight of market that game commands. So making a sports clone will nearly always end in failure.

As mentioned above, a range of original and tried and tested is a good idea to follow. Like it or not, the vast majority of the gaming public (ie not the people that post on here), like familiarity, they like to know what to expect when they boot up your game. Just look at some of the great games recently that have achieved critical acclaim, but bombed on the shelves. Add to much 'originality' and they (on the whole) will not be interested, as they might have to actually learn something new to play this game.

Adding a few surprises along the way is no problem, as it stops the player getting to bored (though that might not actually possible, as Fifa 64BC - 2006AD would testify).

Anyway, the above could all be bollocks too, as sometimes games that deserve to sell do sell, and I think its pretty obvious, there is no golden rule to success, because if there was, then all the studio closures over the past year or so would have never happened.

As is the same in most industries, have a good marketing department, and your 3/4 of the way to success anyway :(


Spree

[Ed Mack]

It just has to be fun and addictive. The Sims was a new genre, and people loved it.

[SpreeTree]

The Sims was a new genre, and people loved it.
18869


The Sims was a new genre, but people also knew what to expect.

If you are controlling a family, person, whatever, and it is grounded in reality, then people know how the game is going to behave, what some of the consequenses are etc.

Spree

[Methulah]

Games like Deus Ex are an example of a great game that didn't do all that well. Most people who have played Deus Ex simply love it, however, most people who you speak about Deus Ex to talk about Invisible War, and even then, it isn't a big thing.

Other games, like Far Cry make far too big a splash, the actual gameplay being total bollocks. It is worthwhile to note that graphics play a HUGE part for the original WOW factor of a game that will get people to buy and pre-order it (I am guilty of this, I pre-ordered Age of Empires 3 before I knew squat about the gameplay - I now know a bit and am happy about my choice).

As SpreeTree mentioned, there is no secret, except for a good marketing team and plently of exposiure, so in that regard, indie games have a HUGE disadvantage.

Thanks.

[Kryogen]

I have a full time job, a wife, and hopefully soon kids. So I see this as a hobby, not a living. Therefore, my answer will always be: "So long as you're having fun and enjoy what you do, don't worry about everyone else. If you wish to engorge yourself 100% into the idea and make it your life's work, then just do whatever genre you feel the most comfortable with."

[Methulah]

That is the difference, some indies wish to make a difference and earn some cash, while others simple do it for the fun. I am not comdemning eather groups, but indies who want cash for their toil must think about market trend and other industry related stuff, which is boring and in most cases pointless as very few true indie games have any impact on the market whatsoever.

For cash-seeking indies, whether or not they make a clone or originial is highly important, as a successful title can change their life =)

thanks

[Tufty]

I'd like to make some money out of game programming one day - that's why I'm at uni doing my degree in it, after all - but all the work I'm doing on it now is just so I can learn a little more than what my education is teaching. If I complete a game, and find people willing to play it who then enjoy it, all the better - if people want to give me some money for my efforts, better still, but that's not the goal. I enjoy programming - all the fun is in the journey.

[Einheri]

Original ideas are definitely the way to go, only not necessarily in the way you might have meant. No matter how original your standalone desktop PC game idea is, it will still be competing with every other standalone desktop PC game. Where the indie develoer has to be original and creative is in the delivery of their games and in the targeting of niche markets that commercial develpers have yet to steam into. You'll never make a saleable FPS on your home PC, but a clever little Java game for a mobile phone could very well become quite popular.

That's my view, at least. (And intention :devil: )

[Methulah]

I don't see why an indie team can't make a saleable game in a popular genre.

look at 0ad [http://www.wildfiregames.com/0ad/], it is an RTS that is up to scratch with the competition (although it is set for a freeware erlease) and they even made their own engine. While I agree that it is hard to make a sellable indie game, plase do not say "never"

Thanks.

[pat_mathis]

You'll never make a saleable FPS on your home PC,

Good thing the good people at Valve thought the same thing and stopped production on their little head spinner, especially when they hit some serious road blocks... Oh wait, they didn't. And now source is one of the best engines out there.

But I think the real issue here is effort, but now I'm getting off topic...

It just upsets me that companies won't try new things with a multi-million dollar budget. And the stuff that they do add always seems to be from some smaller game that implamented it. Then no one knows about the little guy at all.

[Methulah]

Hate to break it too you, but I'm pretty sure that Source wasn't made on a home PC, seeing as VALVe were as rich as anyone after good old Half-Life, perhaps a better example might have been Reality Engine, which is a better engine that Source, was out about four years before source and began development as two indie coders who wanted an engine for their game.

Thanks

[anubis]

Hate to break it too you, but I'm pretty sure that Source wasn't made on a home PC

huh... taking into account how bad they handled the whole source code theft incident, gabe newell probably is a one man game studio working out of an appartment ? :)

[Tufty]

And I would dispute the statement that Source is one of the best engines out there. It's old technology and it shows, with the lack of proper dynamic lighting and shadows, the poor physics modelling (some of their bounding boxes are ridiculously large), and the fact that it doesn't have bloom effects as standard. The Far Cry engine is significantly better, as is the Doom 3 engine - if Half-Life 2 had come out when originally planned, the engine might have been impressive but by the time it was finally released it was out of date.

[pat_mathis]

I didn't mean they made the source engine as a bunch of indie's... damn, my point was that when they made half-life one that they were pretty indie and that FPS can turn a buck for the indie scene. I should have mentioned Painkiller, Serious Sam, or (yes) Farcry.

And I supose they're all clones, no?

[Tufty]

And I supose they're all clones, no?
18958


Yup. I guess you could call them clones. Most FPS games have been clones of the original Wolfenstein 3D though, technically. The features and the graphics have improved, as have the storylines (in most cases!) - but the core gameplay concept remains the same.

[Methulah]

I would say that VALVe were inexperianced, but the leader (game newbell) was best friends with the head of ID, so a few of their issues were taken away by that lucky conincidance.

Anyway, the topic still stands, with most people agreeing that you need a blend of copied and original ideas to make a good game. a great example of this is Half-Life 2, at its core it is just an FPS, but it added the idea of physics as a gameplay element, making a new aspect to the game.

Just my rant =)

[pat_mathis]

I will say this for the arguement as a whole. If your just having fun, you might as well do something new. Other wise it all just becomes work and you never get to put in any inovation. And it really is a rush to be able to say, "I did this".

[Methulah]

Gash, shall we close this by saying that a blend of tried and tested ideas and original ones are the way to success?

Please.